I had a response from the CPS reference my Freedom of Information request.

Nope, couldn’t see anything in there about CPS Prosecutors holding confidential or sensitive case conferences with police!

On 6th December, 2017 I had my Misconduct Meeting with Warwickshire Superintendent 230200 Richard Long. As well as my Regulation 22 response I had already submitted, I produced the following document for this meeting, pointing out errors and conflicting information by DI Marin TAYLOR, which might assist to question his reliability and integrity.

CO/00872

MISCONDUCT MEETING

06/12/17

Following my Regulation 22 response to this allegation of Misconduct,

I wish to note/ add the following points and observations.

The basis of the complaint is that the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Childer, Detective Inspector Martin Taylor alleges that ‘Andy’ told him that I had said to her that during the meeting with CPS the solicitor stated “it was clear that you haven’t investigated hunt saboteurs before”.

Without wishing to be disrespectful of DI Taylor, I feel that is important and right to draw to your attention concerns/mistakes/errors and incorrect assumptions that were made by him during the investigation into Operation Childer and the investigation into myself.

I had been investigating the offence of animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act, by myself for nearly 2 months. My Inspector, Bob Barnet had nominated me for a Commendation for my work on this case amongst other things.

On 18/07/16 DI Taylor sent me, DS Wells and DC Cleeton an email saying, “Having looked at this matter, the more suitable offence is”.

He then had a link to PNLD, Cruelty to a wild mammal under the Wild Mammals(Protection) Act 1996.

I then responded saying that both the RSPCA and The National Wildlife Crime Unit had advised me that the Animal Welfare Act was more appropriate. (This is the offence currently being investigated).

There was no acknowledgement of this error.

In his statement dated 02/11/16 DI Taylor said that it was in the meeting of 25/07/16 that he informed me that he was taking ownership of the matter and that DC Cleeton was going to be the OIC for the investigation.

This was not the case. I was informed of this decision by DI Taylor on the 26/07/16 by email. (Documents 3 and 4 on my Grievance paperwork refers).

At the top of page 3 of DI Taylor’s statement he said, “Due to the sensitive nature of this comment I did not probe ‘Andy’ over it as I felt it was more appropriate to deal with this matter internally at a later date”.

He did not deal with this matter internally. He presented the information to Stephen Davies at the CPS two and a half months later on 24/10/16 who then made a complaint on 28/10/16.

The Memo Report containing the complaint was sent to Professional Standards on 08/11/16 and I was eventually served a notice for misconduct on 14/12/16, four months later.

DI Taylor was concerned enough to make a note of the comment and exhibit that note on 11/08/16. Why did he not deal with it at the time ‘to provide a fair, open and proportionate method of dealing with alleged misconduct’ dealing promptly and effectively as set out in the Home Office Guidance for Police Officer Misconduct?

Furthermore, DI Taylor’s exhibit MCT1 is apparently written in a ‘loose leaf A4 notebook’. Why is it not written in his pocket notebook?

DI Taylor took the trouble to document the fact that he was going to Abergavenny to see ‘Andy’ in his notebook, a matter not evidential. Why would he not therefore put what he considered to be an evidential matter in his notebook. It would then be clear that this was evidenced on this date.

It would also be in line with West Mercia Police’s Policy/Procedure on the use of pocket notebooks.

DI Taylor, as the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Childer sent a Memo Report to Professional Standards and the Crown Prosecution Service dated 08/11/16. This report is very similar to Doc 7 on my Grievance report which DI Taylor used as a basis to interview me on 05/12/16.

DI Taylor obviously felt concerned enough about me to have Professional Standards look at the issue and yet he failed to check the accuracy of the report and made assumptions based on information which was not credible.

The information about ‘Andy’ having an affair with a police officer came from the NFU who could hardly be seen to be impartial or independent. Not only that, it was not backed up by any evidence and yet it was given credibility!

I was not named as being the officer suspected of having the affair and yet was apparently the only officer made to send an email confirming this.

I was accused of disclosing evidence with ‘suspects’ in the case. DI Taylor knew that the people I had spoken to were not suspects but important witnesses who gave a statement which would be crucial to the prosecution. I made this clear in an email to him dated 26/07/16. (Doc 3) DI Taylor makes no mention of this on Doc 7.

DI Taylor asked me about opening the exhibit bags containing the SD cards. He accused me of not updating the Property Management System, having a clear break in the continuity of the exhibits and not recording my actions in my statement. I was able to show DI Taylor that none of this was true and he simply said that he’d missed it! He made no apology for this, despite raising it as a serious issue with Professional Standards.

A grievance that I submitted in respect of this was upheld by Superintendent Purcell who apologised to me on behalf of the Organisation.

I feel that his letter dated 09/05/17 is a very important document to consider.

Superintendent Purcell investigated my complaint and at point 2 in this letter stated ‘That there was no evidence that you had done anything inappropriate during that investigation and there was no evidence of improper relationships with anyone’.

Perhaps more worrying are the different accounts given by DI Taylor, when asked the same question.

On the 02/12/16 when I asked DI Taylor in an email what points needed clarifying so that I could prepare myself for the meeting he replied that it was far too complicated to send by email.

In respect of question 2 in my Grievance Resolution ‘Why could the information in Doc 7 not have been given to me when requested on 02/12/16? I was not being investigated for any disciplinary matters’.

DI Taylor’s first response to CI Francis on 21/01/17 was that in his Professional judgement, it was not appropriate to do so.

In a later meeting with CI Francis DI Taylor stated, ‘However the Email was worded this way following advice from ‘Richard’s sergeant’ who informed me that if I had fully explained to Richard what was going to happen he would have gone sick’.

My sergeant has told me that he never said this to DI Taylor!

A local sergeant investigated crimes of harassment against my wife and I.

In a letter updating us about his investigation it appears that DI Taylor told him 2 different answers to the same question!

As stated, I have no wish to be disrespectful to DI Taylor but hope you will agree that I have documented errors that he has made in other aspects of this investigation.

It is in this light that I hope you will give consideration to the allegation.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Richard

PC 3202 Barradale-Smith

Also, remember what Superintendent Purcell had said about him. ‘ He’s a danger to me. He’s a danger to the organisation.

So, we had the meeting and I was supported by Fed Rep 2. This was the outcome!

So, Misconduct Meetings should be judged on the ‘balance of probabilities’.

A Detective Inspector has alleged that I have disclosed something to ‘Andy’, being fairly specific about the words I had said. I have said that I did not knowingly disclose confidential and sensitive information from the meeting of 25/07/16. ‘Andy’ has said that I did not disclose anything from that meeting to her.

So 2 people, including the victim in the case, say it didn’t happen. One person, who is apparently a ‘danger to the organisation’ said it did.

I’m not great at maths, but I reckon that on the balance of probabilities………it didn’t happen.

But let’s have a look at what happened again. I have always been very clear about the words used in that meeting. Public Prosecutor, Stephen Davies said, “Have you had any experience in dealing with these sort of people before”? I said, “What sort of people”? Stephen Davies replied, “Animal Rights people”. That is what was said.

So, if I had repeated this to ‘Andy’, this is what she would have presumably said to DI Martin Taylor and these are the words that he would have written on his ‘blank note book paper’. But Martin Taylor wrote words along the same lines as Stephen Davies, ‘it was clear that you haven’t investigated Hunt saboteurs before’, and so they had clearly got together to establish their preferred version of what had been said. (Please bear with me)

When I was served the misconduct notice in December 2016 it was alleged that, ‘you have disclosed confidential and sensitive information from the case conference to ‘Andy’. When I asked for clarification on this Wendy Elliott said…….

‘This complaint arose from a comment made at a meeting in August 2016 where ‘Andy’ stated that PC Barradale-Smith told her that during the meeting with CPS the solicitor stated “it was clear that you haven’t investigated hunt saboteurs before”. This was a comment made by Mr Davies and as we discussed previously Mr Davies had stated that the content of the meeting on the 25/07/16 was confidential’.

I questioned DS Husbands, (PSD) earlier about the ‘woolly’ wording change on my Reg 21 notice served on me on 13/11/17. ‘It is alleged that after being informed in a case conference you attended with CPS that it was sensitive and should not be discussed outside of the conference, you spoke to ‘Andy’, a witness in the case and discussed elements of that meeting with her.

And then it made sense…….

You see, after my mobile phone was seized during the warrant, it was thoroughly examined. The officer/s who examined it, looked at outgoing and incoming call data to see if I had been in contact with ‘Andy’ or anyone in the HIT team prior to the 28/05/16.

But the officers didn’t stick to the confines of the warrant. They also decided to check the recording facility on my phone and discover that various meetings I had attended had been recorded.

But had the meeting with Stephen Davies been recorded? Well, PSD didn’t know and I think that is the reason they changed the wording to make it very non specific when they realised that I might be able to prove what I had been saying!

And so for the misconduct outcome, it appeared that ‘somebody’ wanted misconduct found. But wait, that would mean that the original officer in the case, (me) and one of the main prosecution witnesses, (‘Andy’) were both ‘found’ to be liars. This was a disclosable document which would obviously cause serious detriment to the Operation Childer case.

Perhaps that was the plan!!

Oh, and as for the top paragraph on the second page of Superintendent Long’s report above……..read the policy below and decide for yourself!

---

Post Navigation:

We are nearly at 60000 hits now on this site which is more than I could ever have imagined. Many thanks to you all for your kind words of support which has helped me on this journey. But let’s also remind ourselves of what this was about. Fox cubs being thrown alive, to a pack of hounds in the name of ‘sport’ or ‘leisure’. A series of cruel and horrific events which had taken place 18 months earlier and still, no charges had been brought!

(Before I continue, just to let you know I have added information in respect of Stephen Davies to blog 44 which I had previously omitted).

In respect of my Subject Access request to get a copy of the warrant application, they weren’t going to make it easy for me. (And couldn’t even get my name right, even though I worked for them)!

Why on earth couldn’t I be sent a copy of the warrant application? How would me being in possession of this frustrate the investigation into me? It made no sense. Once again demonstrating how West Mercia Police are not transparent, open and honest! OK, I’d have to wait. I hope they weren’t thinking I might forget about it.

Not being one to be scared off by bullies in any organisation, I sent this Freedom of Information request to the Crown Prosecution Service.

At 10am on 15th November I went to West Mercia Police HQ where I had a long meeting with Chief Constable Anthony Bangham. He didn’t say too much but he listened. I made sure he knew everything that had happened during this investigation. As previously stated, I didn’t want him to later have an opportunity to say he wasn’t aware of what had taken place. The only thing that he promised is that I would receive answers to all of my concerns. Would I?

And, anyway, where had I got to? Yes, the misconduct papers I had been served. On 14th November I sent the following email to DS Nicholas Husbands.

And his response……….

Jane wrote to Chief Constable Anthony Bangham……..

And I finally received a letter from DI Justin TAYLOR about the criminal investigation into me…………….

But, what would be the outcome of the misconduct meeting on 6th December with Superintendent Long?

---

Post Navigation:

But were there any other links between NFU Mutual at Ross on Wye and The South Hereford Hunt?

And any links between PC Christine Watkins and the suspect, Alex Price? Well, they were friends on social media. Good friends by the look of it!

And so, I will leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why you think that Christine Watkins reported that one of the victims in the Operation Childer animal cruelty case, ‘Andy’, was having an affair with a police officer!

Remember what Code B of Pace states in relation to obtaining the warrant.

3 Search warrants and production orders. (a) Before making an application. 3.1 When information appears to justify an application, the officer must take reasonable steps to check the information is accurate, recent and not provided maliciously or irresponsibly. An application may not be made on the basis of information from an anonymous source if corroboration has not been sought

3A The identity of an informant need not be disclosed when making an application, but the officer should be prepared to answer any questions the magistrate or judge may have about; The accuracy of previous information from that source, and. any other related matters.

And so, DI Justin TAYLOR would have disclosed all of the above information to the Magistrate when applying for the warrant, wouldn’t he? It would have been his duty to.

And of course, at the time of reporting this affair, PC Watkins would have fully disclosed her relationship with the suspect and her connections with the South Hereford Hunt……………wouldn’t she? And if she didn’t, you might think that she would be investigated for attempting to pervert the course of justice………….wouldn’t you?

But it still didn’t make sense. Why on earth would the police have given this information any credibility whatsoever, given where it came from?

Well……….this may help answer that question…………………………..

This might well also explain the last paragraph of chapter 2, (why the local hunt monitors were refused permission to set up a ‘Watch Scheme’).

What do you think?

---

Post Navigation:

On Monday 13th November 2017, DS Nicholas Husbands and PSD Officer, Wendy Elliot attended my home address. DS Husbands served me with the following Misconduct notice.

So, let’s look at the wording used, ‘you spoke to ‘Andy’, a witness in the case and discussed elements of that meeting with her’. Does this make it clear, what it was I was supposed to have done? Let’s see what the Home Office guidance states……….

2.144. The notice should clearly describe in unambiguous language the particulars of the conduct that it is alleged fell below the standards expected of a police officer.

What other papers were in the bundle?

Surely, the only thing that would have undermined the prosecution case is the prejudicial language used by Stephen Davies. That was the whole point of my attempting to raise the protected disclosure!! What ‘confidential’ information were they talking about? It made no sense!

And they again sent me a copy of the complaint from Stephen Davies.

But wait. Look at the top paragraph on the second page of the complaint above. This had been removed when Wendy Elliot sent me this complaint previously. (Blog 18). Why was that do you think? Perhaps this is why!

Acting Inspector Emma Whitworth discussed the case with Public Prosecutor, Stephen Davies At his request on the day after the press release to the media on 23rd June 2016. I was the officer in the case at this time and no one else knew the full details of it. She could therefore only have discussed with Stephen Davies what had been on the news. How could Stephen Davies have made a fair and impartial ‘initial assessment’ of the case, based only on what he had seen on TV? Why did he ‘raise concerns at this stage’, not having seen ANY of the evidence? And HOW DARE he write , ‘and my concern over the officer’s professionalism based upon previous experience’. He did not back this up with any evidence and I had certainly never been spoken to about my ‘professionalism’ in respect of Stephen Davies previously. He clearly had only ONE agenda and I think that was to make this case go away.

And so where was Professional Standards integrity when they removed this paragraph previously? Why didn’t they question Mr Davies about his remarks? The Emperor’s New Clothes is a story for children, not guidelines on how staff in PSD should behave!

So, the above is a copy of DI Martin Taylor’s statement, made after Stephen Davies’s ‘complaint’ on 28th October 2016 and before he sent a report about it to Professional Standards on 8th November. Let’s have a look at it. Near to the top of the second page he writes, ‘As part of this introduction he made the comment along the lines that it was apparent that we had never investigated Hunt saboteurs before’. At the bottom of the same page he writes, ‘This was significant statement as it was virtually word for word what Stephen Davies had said’.

My question for you DI TAYLOR is, if you can’t remember exactly what Stephen Davies said in the first place, how could ‘Andy’ have repeated it virtually word for word?

In any case, I have always remained clear about what he said, ‘“Have you had any experience in dealing with these sort of people before”? I replied, “What sort of people”? Mr Davies said, ” Animal rights people”.

That is what Stephen Davies said. It seems that, having had the opportunity to discuss this issue, DI Martin Taylor, DS Wells and Stephen Davies have a ‘preferred’ account of what was said! I wonder why?

In paragraph 2 on page 2 of his statement, DI Martin Taylor states that it was in the meeting of 25th July that CID would be taking over the case. This is clearly not the case. It was in his email to me on 26th July that he informed me of this. It’s in print!

Lastly, you will see that DI Martin Taylor writes in his pocket note book that he was going to Abergavenny Police Station to see ‘Andy’. So……he obviously has his pocket note book on him. And yet, when he went to his car after the meeting with ‘Andy’, he says he records what he regards as evidential information in his ‘loose leaf A4 note book’.

Why wouldn’t he have written this in his pocket note book, as per West Mercia’s pocket note book policy? Perhaps because, he possibly didn’t actually document this at the time? I try to deal with this point later and get a very interesting but extremely worrying response from Professional Standards!

And the paper bundle contained part of a statement taken from ‘Andy’, after I was criminally interviewed in September.

So…….why was I going to a misconduct meeting? Did someone want to have a conduct issue against me on record so that the case would collapse. I think so.

And the missing link which finally started to make sense of what had happened and why it was continuing……………………

As part of the paper bundle given to me for my Misconduct Meeting I was given the following information…

‘In addition to this, during the later part of September 2016 it was brought to the attention of D.Insp Taylor that PC 1402 Christine Watkins had raised a concern with her Inspector, regarding an unidentified Officer. It transpires that her husband Malcolm works for the NFU and told her that ‘Andy’ was having an affair with a Police Officer. She was asked for more information but her husband did not want to get involved’.

I’ll leave that with you and if any explanation is needed as to why this information should have been treated with extreme caution, but wasn’t, that will be explained next!

---

Post Navigation:

I thought that it was about time to see Chief Constable Anthony Bangham about what had happened to date. I didn’t want him to be able to say at a later date that he wasn’t aware of the actions of his staff. On 19th October 2017 I phoned his office and spoke to his secretary. I told her I would like a meeting with him. She said that she would try to arrange this through his Staff Officer.

So, where we’re we? The conduct issues. On 20th October 2017, I received an update from DS Nicholas Husbands…

And so, to summarise……………………………………………………………………………….. 1. I was to attend a misconduct meeting for repeating confidential and sensitive information in respect of Public Prosecutor, Stephen Davies. 2. I was to receive Management Action, a non disciplinary outcome, for complaining to Public Prosecutor Suzanne Llewelyn. (For which I had originally been served a notice for Gross Misconduct for breaching the Data Protection Act)……………………………………………………………………………………. 3. If no further action was being taken in respect of the criminal offence of Malfeasance in a Public Office, then there would be no case to answer in respect of the Gross Misconduct notice I was served.

Ok…….I was just a bit confused about receiving ‘Management Action’ for breaching the Data Protection Act. This is like, ‘words of advice’ for something I hadn’t agreed that I had done! Mmmmm…………… I responded on the same day…

2.185. Where the appropriate authority consider that there is a case to answer in respect of misconduct and that management action would not be appropriate because the case to answer is considered serious enough that if proven or admitted it would justify at least a written warning being given then a misconduct meeting/hearing should be arranged. The police officer shall, subject to the harm test, be given a copy of the investigation report (or the part of the report which is relevant to him or her), any other relevant documents gathered during the course of the investigation and a copy of his or her statement to the investigator. These documents should be supplied to the officer as soon as possible after the decision has been made to refer the matter to a meeting or a hearing.

I didn’t think this was an unreasonable request given that the complaint had been made a year before!!

DS Husbands responded on 23rd October 2017…

Why was DS Husbands holding his cards so closely to his chest? Why didn’t he want to have integrity, transparency and respect?

On 24th October 2017 I received confirmation that the Chief Constable,Anthony Bangham would meet with me on 15th November. Also on this day, Chief Inspector Dean Jones rang to tell me that I should hear about the decision from the CPS, (re Malfeasance in Public Office), within 4 weeks. This doubled up as a welfare call! He told me that it should all be drawing to a conclusion. That was nice!………….Anyway, back to DS Husbands…

And his response on 27th October…

And his response …

And on 2nd November DS Husbands wrote…

DS Husbands then sent this to myself and Fed Rep 2 on 8th November. It seemed to be taking a rather long time to ‘identify’ a senior officer to chair the meeting. Were they looking for a special kind of senior officer?

On 13th November, 2017 DS Husbands was going to serve me with my notice for Misconduct along with the associated investigation documents. What would these reveal? I wonder!!

---

Post Navigation:

At the end of my interview on 20th September I told DI Justin TAYLOR that I was going to have to now go home and explain to Jane that I had again been questioned about having an affair. I said that I wanted him to phone my wife and explain to her what evidence they had to justify questioning me about this. I said that she, quite rightly, would be thinking that they would have to have very good evidence to go to these lengths.

He did phone her and he told her that they had NO further evidence! Jane said that DI TAYLOR then said something that she found extremely alarming and threatening, ‘I’ve got your life in my hands’! Jane was at work when she received the call and found it so intimidating and upsetting, that she had to leave work early.

I remember driving home from the interview, feeling numb, not being able to believe what was going on.

It wasn’t long before the media found out about the warrant and they had started to ask questions!

I knew I had to get a copy of the warrant application. I decided to email Birmingham Magistrates Court who had issued the warrants.

On 29th September 2017, I received the following response.

Also on 29th September I drove to Worcester to meet DS Craig Tennant who was going to return the paperwork that had been seized from me. later on this day, he sent me this email.

On 16th October 2017, we had the remaining items which had been seized, returned to us. On checking the property, I noticed that my iPhone had two small bubbles under the glass on the front screen! (Which weren’t there before the phone was seized). The phone didn’t have a screen cover on. The bubbles were definitely under the glass. I took the phone to an EE phone shop and got one of the staff to have a look at it. They told me that the screen must have been removed!!

Why on earth would the police have removed the screen from my phone? Why indeed!!!

On 17th October 2017 I sent an email to Chief Superintendent Mark Travis asking for an update.

And his response….

Jane emailed Mark Travis on the following day!!

A fair enough question to ask considering the stress Jane had been put through. A question that would obviously deserve a respectful, courteous and sympathetic answer from a chief officer of a ‘caring’ organisation. What do you think?

Sorry Jane, he was clearly too busy to show you any respect whatsoever!

Anyway, where was I, yes my quest for the warrant application.

---

---

And so….I submitted a subject access data request Form on 21-10-17…

They obviously didn’t want to make things easy for me but despite their best efforts, I was not going to be forced into submission.

---

Post Navigation:

A tiny percentage of people in this country have court warrants served on their addresses. But how many people reporting crime or indeed, the victims of crime would expect in doing so to end up with the invasive and harrowing experience of strangers rooting through your property without your permission…….and making you watch!

It would appear that the search warrants and the criminal interview were nothing more than a ‘fishing trip’.

Perhaps West Mercia Police would stop at nothing, to find some reason to drop this case.

By executing these warrants, they had already thrust a sword through the heart of its integrity, giving the defence Barristers, (and the general public) a reason to question my honesty and to move the focus away from the heinous crime and on to me. (Everyone knows, there’s no smoke without fire)! Who was driving this and why?

As stated, ‘Andy’ had warrants served on her house and vehicle at the same time as ours. I now have copies of her warrants and with her permission will show you them………..

So as you can see on the second page, DC Hawes has searched the vehicle but seized nothing from it so endorsed this by writing, ‘none’.

But wait, on the second page of this warrant, the sections for listing property seized has been left blank by DI Justin TAYLOR. So presumably he didn’t seize any property from the house. Well, yes he did, so why wasn’t the warrant endorsed as such?

And… look at the wording on the warrant, exactly the same as the wording on my warrant….

The Magistrate who endorsed the warrant did so saying, ‘I authorise the person or persons identified beneath to enter the specified premises on the number of occasions indicated, to search for………. Telecom and electronic equipment capable of communicating with members of the Anti-Hunt Investigation Team or Hunt Masters’.

This wording makes absolutely NO sense on ‘Andy’s’ warrant. It should have simply read, ‘capable of communicating with PC Barradale-Smith’.

They couldn’t even get the simple bits correct!

And then, quite obviously, in a vain attempt at correcting the mistake of not documenting items taken from ‘Andy’s’ house, Kidderminster CID sent ‘Andy’ a copy of this report.

The above report makes no sense. DI TAYLOR was the officer in charge of the review of Operation Childer. He was the officer who searched ‘Andy’s’ house. He was the officer that seized items from ‘Andy’s’ house. Why would he have needed to be given this information from DS Tenant? It was a bullshit, arse covering, face saving memo report because they failed to document items taken from the house at the time.

---

Post Navigation:

Malfeasance (Misconduct) in Public Office.

A person who;

1. Whilst carrying out their duties as a public officer

2. wilfully

a. acts in an improper manner, or

b. neglects to perform their duty

3. to such an extent as to amount to an abuse of public trust

4. without reasonable excuse or justification

Just to give you an idea of how serious this criminal offence is regarded, Malfeasance or ‘misconduct’ in a Public Office carries a maximum sentence of Life Imprisonment!!!!

What new information and evidence did West Mercia Police hold to warrant investigating this serious allegation?

On 19th September 2017, DS Husbands, (PSD), sent me the following…

My sergeant also sent me an email….

And I replied….

And on 20th September Jane sent this to DS Nicholas Husbands, (PSD)..

And the response from DS Husbands!!

That may be the case as it was a criminal investigation…..but PSD and in particular, Nicholas Husbands WOULD have been consulted prior to the warrant being obtained. PSD would have almost certainly had to give a green light to the warrant for disclosure purposes in the application.

I attended Kidderminster Police Station. I had spoken to Fed Rep 1 who had the honesty to tell me that he thought he was now ‘out of his depth’ and would have to pass it on to someone with more experience. I was therefore not represented by anyone from the Federation but they had arranged for a solicitor to attend to represent me.

Prior to being interviewed I met DS Nicholas Husbands for the first time. He served me with the following papers for Gross Misconduct!!

If this Gross Misconduct was found against me I would also, of course, definitely lose my job.

But hang on a minute. Hadn’t I already been interviewed, on 5th December 2016, about passing on information to key witnesses, (the Hunt Masters)? And hadn’t I already been interviewed about suspected ‘friendships’ and relationships with the witness group? (Paul Hale- Hunt Master and ‘Andy’ – from the HIT)? And hadn’t I already put all of the answers to these questions in a written statement for court on the same day?

It must have been something else they were going to question me about! I was confused.

Before going into interview the solicitor and I were given written disclosure, a notice around what I was going to be questioned about!!,

And so I went into the interview room. I was interviewed by Detective Inspector Justin TAYLOR and Detective Sergeant Craig Tennant. The interview was recorded and I was cautioned, a caution that I had spoken to others, so many hundreds of times. I couldn’t believe that I was the one now being told those words……and I was the one being criminally interviewed!!

Even though I knew I had done nothing wrong, it still made me feel sick to the pit of my stomach.

But, what we’re they going to ask me about? What new ‘evidence’ or ‘information’ did they have?

Well…..you guessed it, I was asked more or less exactly the same questions as I was asked by DI Martin Taylor on 5th December, 10 months earlier!

And what further evidence or information did they have? Absolutely none.

So they had obtained a warrant and interviewed me, based on information the police had been given 12 months earlier…….and after I had already been interviewed about it!

You’ll remember Code B of Pace that I referred to……………….. 3 Search warrants and production orders. (a) Before making an application. 3.1 When information appears to justify an application, the officer must take reasonable steps to check the information is accurate, recent and not provided maliciously or irresponsibly. An application may not be made on the basis of information from an anonymous source if corroboration has not been sought.

Accurate – hardly. Recent. – I have NEVER know a warrant to be obtained on information that was 12 months old. 12 months is NOT recent. And ‘not provided maliciously or irresponsibly’. What did CI Jones say? ‘Clearly, there is no evidence at all in terms of you having an affair with anybody, and I’d just like to stand here and say that’ and ‘The information that was forthcoming came from a police officer that had heard a community rumour basically”, and ‘I can only speculate as to why such a rumour would be started in the first place but clearly one credible reason would be for an assertion to be raised as to the credibility and impartiality of the investigation/ investigators to the potential benefit of those under investigation’. What did the local PS say who investigated our harrassment? ‘Having spoken to a number of people it was clear that the rumour had been well circulated within the local community but what was also clear was that there was no evidence of any kind to support it’. What did Superintendent Purcell write, ‘That there was no evidence that you had done anything inappropriate during that investigation and there was no evidence of improper relationships with anyone’.

How did DI Justin TAYLOR get a warrant knowing the above? Of course, he would have documented all of the above in the disclosure section of the warrant application form…….wouldn’t he?

You really couldn’t make this up. If this was a fictional story, most police officers wouldn’t give it any credibility and would say, ‘that would never happen in real life’.

I answered all of the questions they asked of me, as I done previously.

And just when I thought I couldn’t get any more disillusioned and despondent, the CID officers told me that at the same time the warrants were being served on our house, they also served a simultaneous warrant on the home address of ‘Andy’ from the Hunt Investigation Team! (The victim in the case).

Yes, just when you thought they couldn’t stoop any lower, a warrant was served on the address of a victim of crime, a victim who had previously had NO faith in the police or Judicial system, a victim to whom I had promised that a fair, transparent and impartial investigation would take place, a victim who had, against her better judgement, placed her trust in our organisation, a victim who we could have made a real difference to.

---

Post Navigation:

Executing a search warrant on somebody’s address, particularly their home address is an extremely serious matter and this cannot be overstated..

Very strict rules are in place for obtaining warrants from courts and these are set out in Code B of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act. (PACE)

Please bear with me while I highlight the relevant parts in respect to the warrants served on our property and vehicles.

1.3 The right to privacy and respect for personal property are key principles of the Human Rights Act 1998. Powers of entry, search and seizure should be fully and clearly justified before use because they may significantly interfere with the occupier’s privacy. Officers should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by less intrusive means.

(In respect of that last line, I will remind you, and hope you can see that, not only was I fully cooperating with the investigations, I had asked Superintendent THOMAS and DI TAYLOR to investigate what had happened. (It was, as you recall, DI TAYLOR who refused to investigate it after I asked him to on 5th December). Surely, no one could say that I wasn’t or wouldn’t cooperate)!

1.5 If the provisions of PACE and this Code are not observed, evidence obtained from a search may be open to question.

3 Search warrants and production orders. (a) Before making an application. 3.1 When information appears to justify an application, the officer must take reasonable steps to check the information is accurate, recent and not provided maliciously or irresponsibly. An application may not be made on the basis of information from an anonymous source if corroboration has not been sought

So the information they had about me was ‘accurate, recent and not provided maliciously or irresponsibly. 👍

The Warrant had been applied for by Detective Inspector 3160 Justin TAYLOR. He would have checked to make sure all of the conditions were met…………wouldn’t he? By their very nature, Detective Inspectors are involved in dealing with and running the most serious of criminal cases and wouldn’t dare get this wrong……..would they?

3A The identity of an informant need not be disclosed when making an application, but the officer should be prepared to answer any questions the magistrate or judge may have about; The accuracy of previous information from that source, and. any other related matters.

And …………just in case anyone wasn’t quite sure about what was required of them to apply for a warrant, http://www.justice.gov.uk made sure there was a proper application form with questions to answer. There is even a guide at the back of the application, to help you answer those questions…………

That’s fairly straight forward and easy to understand isn’t it. I’m sure DI TAYLOR, being an experienced Detective, filled the form in meticulously…………didn’t he? We’ll see a bit later!

---

Post Navigation: